Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case 20STCV44265 2023-01-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV44265, Date: 2023-01-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV44265 Hearing Date: January 27, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendant Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc.’s motion to continue trial is GRANTED. Trial is continued to April 5, 2023. Discovery and motions cutoff dates remain closed.

Legal Standard

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that although disfavored, the trial date may be continued for “good cause,” which includes (without limitation): (1) unavailability of trial counsel or witnesses due to “death, illness, or other excusable circumstances”; (2) the addition of a new party depriving the new party (or other parties) from conducting discovery and preparing for trial; (3) “excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts”; or (4) “[a] significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case” preventing it from being ready for trial. (Id., Rule 3.1332(c).)

Other relevant considerations may include: “(1) The proximity of the trial date; [¶] (2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; [¶] (3) The length of the continuance requested; [¶] (4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; [¶] (5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; [¶] (6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; [¶] (7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; [¶] (8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; [¶] (9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; [¶] (10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and [¶] (11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.” (Id., Rule 3.1332(d).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 allows a court to grant leave to complete discovery proceedings. In doing so, a court shall consider matters relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity of the discovery, (2) the diligence in seeking the discovery or discovery motion, (3) the likelihood of interference with the trial calendar or prejudice to a party, and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between previous trial dates. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.050.)

Discussion

Defendant moves for a trial continuance to April 3, 2023, because lead trial counsel for Home Depot, Robert Carlson, Esq., is unavailable due to his prior commitment to pre-paid binding arbitration on February 6, 2023 in an unrelated matter and Home Depot will be unfairly prejudiced if Carlson is not present for the entire duration of trial, as he has 40 years of trial experience and he is invaluable to Home Depot’s defense. (Young Decl. ¶¶ 3-5.) Trial was initially set for May 18, 2022. (Id., ¶ 6.) The case was reassigned to this department pursuant to a recusal and trial was set for October 17, 2022. (Id.) On October 17, 2022, all parties reported ready; however, a courtroom was not available, and the matter was continued to October 24, 2022. (Id., ¶ 7.) On October 24, 2022, pursuant to oral stipulation, the trial was rescheduled to November 7, 2022. (Id.) All parties reported ready on November 7, 2022; however, after reporting to Judge Nishimoto, counsel for Plaintiffs objected to the assignment because Judge Nishimoto would be on vacation November 21-25, 2022, and Plaintiffs found it prejudicial to have a break in the trial. (Id., ¶ 8.) The parties were referred for reassignment on November 9, 2022. (Id.) On November 9, the court encouraged the parties to continue the matter in order to avoid further trial call without assignment. (Id., ¶ 9.) The parties met and conferred with their respective trial calendars. (Id., ¶ 9.) Plaintiffs’ counsel had conflicts in early January while counsel for Home Depot had several conflicts in February and March, including the aforementioned pre-paid binding arbitration on February 6, 2023. (Id.) Trial was rescheduled to January 30, 2023. (Id., ¶ 10.) Counsel for Home Depot cautioned that Carlson may be set for arbitration on February 6 and if that matter did not resolve, the January 30 trial date would no longer be acceptable. (Id., ¶ 11.)

Plaintiffs argue that Carlson has only been involved in this matter since October of 2022, and that the law firm has 88 attorneys according to its website. Tracy Hughes, the partner that has been handling the litigation since its inception, previously stated to plaintiff’s counsel that she would be the trial counsel. Plaintiffs argue they have already had their lives placed on hold waiting for their day in court—which they originally believed would be last October. Further, the trial date in this case has already been continued multiple times. Plaintiffs argue that a trial must take precedence over an arbitration—an arbitration that could also be done by any of the other 88 attorneys of the defense firm. Plaintiffs have paid their experts thousands of dollars to be ready for trial. Each time one of these defense requests for a trial continuance is granted, plaintiffs incur additional expert costs—in addition plaintiffs’ experts (and all of plaintiff’s other witnesses) having to completely rearrange their schedules.

The Court finds there is good cause to continue trial as defense counsel will be engaged in pre-paid arbitration. The Court cannot weigh in on which 88 attorneys of Defendant’s law firm will handle which trial or arbitration. While Plaintiffs argue that they would be prejudiced by a trial continuance because their experts have cleared their calendars, they do not state for example that if trial is continued, their experts would be unavailable. Although trial was continued multiple times, it does not appear to be the fault of any party, but rather, the unavailability of courtrooms, conflicts in the Court’s schedule, or a conflict of interest in the case. Lastly, Plaintiffs have not explained how a trial continuance would prejudice them, besides having to wait a few more months. Plaintiffs will still have their day in court. Thus, the motion is granted. Trial is continued to April 5, 2023. Discovery and motions cutoff dates are not extended.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the motion to continue trial is GRANTED. Trial is continued to April 5, 2023. Discovery and motions cutoff dates are not extended Discovery and motions cutoff dates are not extended.

Trial is set for April 5, 2023, at 8:30 AM.

Final Status Conference is set for March 22, 2023, at 10:00 AM.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.